Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al
Filing
208
ORDER denying 205 Motion to Amend/Correct with leave to renew. Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 1/31/2012. (TCL, ) Modified on 2/1/2012 to reflect copy mailed to Spreadbury this date (APP, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_____________________________________________
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,
CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., BOONE
KARLBERG, P.C., DR. ROBERT
BROPHY, TRISTA SMITH, NANSU
RODDY, JERRY STEELE, STEVE
SNAVELY, STEVEN BRUNER-MURPHY,
RYAN OSTER, KENNETH S. BELL,
and JENNIFER LINT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
Defendant Lee Enterprises, Inc. moves for an amended scheduling order
extending the present schedule by 90 days. Counsel for Lee Enterprises, however,
did not include within the text of the motion a statement indicating that the other
parties to this action were contacted relative to the motion and whether they
oppose it as required by L.R. 7.1(c)(1). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that pursuant to L.R. 7.1(c)(4) Lee Enterprises’ motion is summarily DENIED
with leave to renew the motion upon compliance with L.R. 7.1(c)(1). If Lee
-1-
Enterprises renews its motion it need only confer with Plaintiff Michael
Spreadbury under L.R. 7.1(c)(1) relative to its motion because Spreadbury’s
claims against Lee Enterprises will be tried separately from Spreadbury’s claims
against the other Defendants.
DATED this 31st day of January, 2012.
/s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?